British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
CICEK AND OZTEMEL AND 6 OTHER CASES<BR>v. TURKEY - 74069/01 [2007] ECHR 355 (3 May 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/355.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 355
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF ÇİÇEK AND ÖZTEMEL AND 6 OTHER
CASES
v. TURKEY
(Applications
nos. 74069/01, 74703/01, 76380/01, 16809/02, 25710/02, 25714/02 and
30383/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3
May 2007
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Çiçek and Öztemel and 6 other
cases v. Turkey,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr A.B.
Baka,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović,
judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 April 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in seven applications (nos. 74703/01, 74069/01,
76380/01, 16809/02, 25710/02, 25714/02 and 30383/02) against the
Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the Convention”). Application no. 74703/01 was
submitted by ten applicants, namely Mr Abbas Baran, Mr Bayram
Ceylan, Mr Mehmet Cihat Aydın, Mr M. Ali Ağın,
Mr Mustafa Yağmur, Mr Hasan Buğa, Mr
Fuat Albayrak, Mr Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu, Mr Enver
Askan and Mr Hamdusela Ekinci. Application no. 74069/01
was submitted by co applicants Mr İnayet Çiçek
and Mr Necat Öztemel. The remainder of the
applications were submitted by Mr Nusret Atlı (no. 76380/01), Mr
Musa Narin (no. 16809/02), Mr Şaban Canpolat (no.
25710/02), Mr Mehmet Fikri Yıldırım
(no. 25714/02) and Mr Salih Kömekçi (no. 30383/02).
The
applicants were all represented by Mr Sedat Çınar,
a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the
Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the
proceedings before the Court.
On
various dates between 2003 and 2005, the Court decided to give notice
of the applications to the Government. Under the provisions of
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the
merits of the applications at the same time as their admissibility.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants are all Turkish nationals who live in Diyarbakır.
In
May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur
municipality, with which they had been employed.
Each
of the applicants brought an action in the Diyarbakır Labour
Court, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities,
severance pays and other pecuniary rights.
On
11 November 1999 the court ruled in their favour and ordered the
municipality to pay the following amounts in Turkish lira (TRL),
including costs, together with interest running from June 1999:
TRL 915,737,870 to
Abbas Baran;
TLR 880,824,998 to
Bayram Ceylan;
TLR 1,062,932,278 to
M. Cihat Aydın;
TLR 911,348,350 to
M. Ali Ağın;
TLR 1,111,150,000 to
Mustafa Yağmur;
TLR 935,170,454 to
Hasan Buğa;
TLR 833,474,812 to
Fuat Albayrak;
TLR 1,078,451,254 to
Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu;
TLR 1,021,383,958 to
Enver Askan;
TLR 905,829,494 to
Hamdusela Ekinci;
TLR 1,000,000,000 to
İnayet Çiçek;
TRL 999,717,000 to
Necat Öztemel;
TRL 781,245,000 to
Nusret Atlı;
TRL 1,111,150,000 to
Musa Narin;
TRL 863,345,000 to
Şaban Canpolat;
TRL 27,113 to Mehmet
Fikri Yıldırım;
and
TRL 956,675,582 to Salih Kömekçi.
In
the absence of an appeal the judgments became final on 19 November
1999.
Within
the following months, the applicants initiated enforcement
proceedings in order to receive the due amounts. As their efforts
proved fruitless, they requested the Diyarbakır Governorship
to intervene to facilitate the enforcement of the court's judgments.
The Governor's Office informed the applicants that they had requested
the municipality to redress their grievances. However, the
municipality did not make any payment since it was underfunded.
At
the date of introduction of the current applications, the relevant
judgment debts were still outstanding. However, in the meantime,
friendly settlement agreements were reached between the following
applicants and the municipality on the dates indicated:
Abbas Baran on 17
January 2005;
Mustafa Yağmur
on 25 December 2003;
Hasan Buğa on
28 December 2001;
Hamdusela Ekinci on
21 November 2005;
İnayet Çiçek
on 11 December 2003;
Necat Öztemel
on 23 December 2003;
Nusret Atlı on
21 November 2005;
Musa Narin on 20 May
2003; and
Mehmet Fikri
Yıldırım
on 14 February 2002.
No
settlement was reached with the other applicants. However, the
municipality deposited certain partial amounts in the relevant
account at the local enforcement office, which amounts were made
available to some applicants and later paid.
On
9 November 2004 a settlement agreement was reached by the applicants'
representative, Mr Sedat Çınar, and the authorities. The
agreement concerned the outstanding legal fees stemming from the
labour courts' judgments. Mr Çınar waived all of his
rights and claims in connection with his representation of the
applicants in the labour cases.
On
28 March 2005 Salih Kömekçi, Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu
and M. Cihat Aydın initiated fresh claims against the
municipality to recover their severance pay.
RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
Article
138 § 4 of the Turkish Constitution provides:
“The bodies of executive and legislative power and
the authorities must comply with court decisions; they cannot in any
circumstances modify court decisions or defer the enforcement
thereof.”
Article
28 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure reads:
“2. Decisions and judgments in
administrative-law actions concerning a specific amount shall be
enforced ... in accordance with the provisions of the ordinary law.”
Under
Section 82(1) of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (Law no. 2004),
State property cannot be seized. Likewise, Section 19(7) of the
Municipalities Act (Law no. 1580 of 3 April 1930) provides that
municipal property that is assigned to a public service cannot be
seized.
THE LAW
Given
the similarity of the applications, both as regards fact and law, the
Court deems it appropriate to join them.
I. THE APPLICANTS' VICTIM STATUS
The
Government submitted that, after the applications were lodged, the
municipality had invited the applicants to collect the outstanding
amounts payable to them. As a result, nine of the applicants had
reached friendly settlement agreements with the municipality.
Although the rest of the applicants declined the offer, funds were
made available to them within the account of the local enforcement
office. The Government, thus, asked the Court to strike the
applications out of the Court's list of cases.
The
applicants contended that the impugned protocols had been made due to
their financial vulnerability and that the deposited amounts merely
constituted partial payments.
The
Court observes that the municipality signed settlement protocols with
Abbas Baran, Mustafa Yağmur, Hasan Buğa, Hamdusela Ekinci,
İnayet Çiçek, Necat Öztemel, Nusret Atlı,
Musa Narin and Mehmet Fikri Yıldırım (paragraph 10
above).
The
protocols stipulated that the applicants waived any outstanding
compensation claims, rights and other credits including costs,
expenses and legal fees, against the payment of certain lump sum
amounts. Furthermore, three applicants among them, namely Mustafa
Yağmur, Hamdusela Ekinci and Nusret Atlı, also waived any
potential rights and claims in connection with their present
applications before the Court.
The
Court finds that the friendly settlements reached between the parties
bear a critical impact on the applications under examination. In
similar cases, it has previously found that the matter had been
resolved for those applicants who signed friendly settlement
protocols and received the relevant amounts, given that their
complaints were based on the very issue of non payment (Yıldırım
and Durman v. Turkey (dec.), no. 49507/99; Bilgin v. Turkey
(dec.), no. 69821/01, 3 November 2005; Şahin v. Turkey
(dec.), no. 33902/02, 20 October 2005). With respect to these nine
applicants, the Court finds no reason to depart from its established
case-law. In the Court's opinion, the applicants who signed protocols
and received certain amounts can no longer be considered victims of a
violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 given the provisions of the
settlement protocols that they have signed.
However,
this reasoning does not require the Court to strike these
applications out of its list of cases altogether. It notes that the
above mentioned cases only dealt with complaints under Article 1
of Protocol No. 1. Thus, the “matter” which was
resolved through settlement protocols was the “deprivation of
property” complaints. Indeed, while the payment of outstanding
amounts may sufficiently respond to property related matters,
other complaints, if submitted separately, would remain unresolved
unless the State took additional action to remedy them.
In
this connection, the Court notes that the applicants also complained
under Article 6 of the Convention on account of the authorities'
failure to execute the labour court's judgments for a significant
period of time. It further notes that the case file does not contain
any indication that the Government have separately remedied the
latter grievance. Therefore, the Court finds it necessary to
distinguish the applicants who waived their rights in connection with
current applications from those who implicitly reserved them. Given
that Mustafa Yağmur, Hamdusela Ekinci and Nusret Atlı
expressed a clear intent to discontinue their applications through
waiver provisions, the Court considers that the settlement protocols
have removed their victim status entirely. Accordingly, the Court
decides to strike out the cases of these three applicants, in
accordance with Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention.
With
respect to Abbas Baran, Hasan Buğa, İnayet Çiçek,
Necat Öztemel, Musa Narin and Mehmet Fikri Yıldırım,
however, the Court considers that their victim status have been
removed only in the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
Their complaints under Article 6, however, require a separate
examination on the merits (see, mutatis mutandis, Guerrera
and Fusco v. Italy, no. 40601/98, §§ 54-55, 3 April
2003)
Finally,
with regard to the amounts deposited in the account of the local
enforcement office in favour of the remaining applicants, the Court
observes that these amounts failed to correspond entirely to the
labour court's judgments. These amounts consisted of the original
debts, without the interest, costs and expenses which had been
awarded. As such, they fell short of the actual amounts payable to
the applicants under the domestic legislation regulating late
payments of labour claims. Accordingly, the Court finds that Bayram
Ceylan, M. Cihat Aydın, M. Ali Ağın,
Fuat Albayrak, Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu, Enver Askan, Şaban
Canpolat and Salih Kömekçi can still claim to have been
the victims of violations of Article 6 of the Convention as well
as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1
The
applicants complain that the authorities' failure to pay the judgment
debts breached their rights to the peaceful
enjoyment of their possessions. They relied on Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1, which reads, in relevant part, as follows:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.”
A. Admissibility
In
addition to their submission that the applicants could no longer be
considered victims (see Section I above), the Government also raised
the following admissibility challenges.
First,
they submitted that the Court lacked jurisdiction ratione
materiae. According to the Government, the Convention and its
Protocols do not protect economic and social rights. Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 should not cover the types of rights such as severance
pay or dismissal indemnities.
The
Government also argued that the applicants failed to exhaust all
domestic remedies. They submitted that, once the applicants failed to
recover the judgment debts, there were a number of options available
to them under Turkish law. They could have initiated criminal
proceedings against the municipality for failure to comply with court
judgments, filed fresh cases to seek temporary remedies such as a
stay of execution, or applied for a certificate of insolvency (aciz
vesikası) which would allow them to resume enforcement
proceedings at any time in the future. Furthermore, some of the
applicants failed to initiate any enforcement proceedings whatsoever.
Thirdly,
the Government argued that the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 were manifestly ill-founded as the judgments of the labour
court remained valid, despite the inability of the municipality to
pay the judgment debts. Accordingly, the applicants could not be
considered to have been deprived of any rights.
Finally,
the Government submitted that the applications of Salih Kömekçi,
Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu and M. Cihat Aydın should be
declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies given
the fresh claims initiated by them.
With
regard to the Government's jurisdictional challenge, the Court
recalls that the present applications do not concern the question of
whether the applicants are entitled to certain economic and social
rights under the Convention. Diyarbakır Labour Court has already
addressed that issue as a matter of domestic labour law and resolved
it in favour of the applicants. The only matter before this Court is
whether the non-execution of the labour court's judgments raises
issues under the Convention and its Protocols.
In
this context, the Court recalls that, in its well established
jurisprudence, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as well as Article 6 of
the Convention are applicable to non-payment of a judgment debt.
Accordingly, the Court dismisses the challenge against its
jurisdiction.
As
regards the Government's “non-exhaustion” objection, the
Court recalls that a person who has obtained an enforceable judgment
against the State as a result of successful litigation cannot be
required to resort to additional proceedings, such as enforcement
proceedings, in order to have it executed (see Metaxas v. Greece,
no. 8415/02, § 19, 27 May 2004). In the same vein, the
applicants were not required to seek a temporary remedy or a
certificate of insolvency or to initiate criminal proceedings for the
purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In any event, none
of the remedies that the Government pointed out was capable of
offering the applicants any prospect of success in forcing the
national authorities to pay the due amounts.
The
Court consequently dismisses the preliminary objection regarding the
exhaustion of domestic remedies.
With
regard to the Government's third preliminary objection, the Court
observes that the fact that the labour court's judgments remain valid
has no bearing on the complaints before it. The complaints relate to
the authorities' failure to execute binding judgments, not to the
question of whether the judgments have become invalid. Accordingly,
the Court also dismisses the argument that the applicants were not
deprived of their rights.
Finally,
the Court finds it clear from the record that Salih Kömekçi,
Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu and M. Cihat Aydın, like the other
applicants, exhausted all domestic remedies, with the labour courts'
judgments becoming final on 19 November 1999. The fresh domestic
claims which they initiated in a further attempt to collect the
unpaid debts did not constitute ordinary and effective remedies which
of necessity had to be exhausted.
In
the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applications
submitted by the applicants who have not reached friendly settlement
agreements with the municipality require an examination on the merits
and there are no other grounds for declaring them inadmissible.
B. Merits
The
Court reiterates that a “claim” can constitute a
“possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 if it is sufficiently established to be enforceable (see Stran
Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, judgment of 9
December 1994, Series A no. 301-B, p. 84, § 59).
The
Diyarbakır Labour Court's judgments of November 1999 provided
the applicants with enforceable claims and not simply a general right
to receive support from the State. The judgments had become final as
no appeal was filed against them, and enforcement proceedings had
been instituted. It follows that the impossibility, for the
applicants who have not reached settlements with the municipality, to
enforce the judgments in their favour constituted an interference
with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, as
set out in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.
By
failing to comply with the judgments of the labour court, the
national authorities prevented the applicants from receiving the
money they were entitled to. The Government have not advanced any
justification for this interference and the Court considers that a
lack of funds cannot justify such an omission (see, mutatis
mutandis, Ambruosi v. Italy, no. 31227/96, §§
28-34, 19 October 2000; Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00,
§§ 35 and 41, ECHR 2002 III).
It
follows that there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 in respect of Bayram Ceylan, M. Cihat
Aydın, M. Ali Ağın, Fuat Albayrak, Ahmet
Hüseyinoğlu, Enver Askan, Şaban Canpolat and Salih
Kömekçi.
III. ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicants also complained that the failure by the authorities to
comply with the labour court's judgments for a long period of time
constituted a violation of their rights protected under Article 6 of
the Convention which provides:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by
[a] ... tribunal ...”
The
Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the
right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations
brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the
“right to a court”, of which the right of access, that is
the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters,
constitutes one aspect. However, that right would be illusory if a
Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final, binding
judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one
party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 § 1 should
describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants –
proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious – without
protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe
Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and
the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations
incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the
Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the
Convention. Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore
be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the
purposes of Article 6 (see Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19
March 1997, Reports 1997-II, p. 510, § 40).
It
is not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse
for not honouring a judgment debt. Whilst, a delay in the execution
of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, it may
not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under
Article 6 § 1 (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC],
no. 22774/93, § 74, ECHR 1999-V). In the instant case, the
applicants should not have been prevented from benefiting from the
success of the litigation on the ground of the alleged financial
difficulties experienced by the Diyarbakır Sur Municipality.
The
Court notes that the Diyarbakır Labour Court's judgments of
November 1999 remained unenforced wholly or in part at least until
settlements protocols were made with certain applicants, and are
still unenforced for the rest of the applicants (save for Mustafa
Yağmur, Hamdusela Ekinci and Nusret Atlı: see Section I
above).
In
view of the above, the Court considers that by failing for several
years to take the necessary measures to comply with the final
judicial decisions in the present case, the authorities deprived the
provisions of Article 6 § 1 of all useful effect.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in respect of all of the applicants except for Mustafa
Yağmur, Hamdusela Ekinci and Nusret Atlı.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
In
respect of pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed various amounts
ranging from around 1,800 to 4,000 euros (EUR), which, according to
them, were equivalent to the sums that the judgments debts would have
grown into, if they had been paid promptly and deposited in a savings
account. Each of them also claimed EUR 3,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested these sums, alleging that they were based on
fictitious calculations. They also submitted that, were the Court to
find violations in the present case, this would constitute sufficient
compensation for any non-pecuniary damage allegedly suffered by the
applicants.
The
Court finds that, in accordance with its finding of a violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Section II above), Bayram Ceylan, M.
Cihat Aydın, M. Ali Ağın, Fuat Albayrak, Ahmet
Hüseyinoğlu, Enver Askan, Şaban Canpolat and Salih
Kömekçi are entitled to pecuniary damages. Bearing in
mind that the applicants' complaint related to the non-payment of
judgment debts, the Court finds that the payment by the Government of
these outstanding amounts, including any interest incurring under the
applicable domestic law on late payment of employment claims, would
satisfy the applicants' claims for pecuniary damages.
Given
its finding of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on
account of the significant period of time during which the domestic
judgments remained unenforced (See Section III above), the Court
considers that the applicants' prejudice cannot be sufficiently
compensated by the finding of a violation alone. Taking into account
the circumstances of the case and having regard to its case-law, the
Court awards the applicants (except for Mustafa Yağmur,
Hamdusela Ekinci and Nusret Atlı) the following sums in respect
of non-pecuniary damage:
- EUR
3,000 for Abbas Baran;
- EUR
1,500 for Hasan Buğa;
- EUR
2,400 for İnayet Çiçek;
- EUR
2,400 for Necat Öztemel;
- EUR
2,000 for Musa Narin;
- EUR
1,500 for Mehmet Fikri Yıldırım; and
- EUR
5,000 for each of the applicants Bayram Ceylan, M. Cihat Aydın,
M. Ali Ağın, Fuat Albayrak, Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu,
Enver Askan, Şaban Canpolat and Salih Kömekçi.
B. Costs and expenses
Each
of the applicants claimed around EUR 1,200 to 1,300 for the costs and
expenses incurred during the proceedings before the domestic
authorities and the Court.
The
Government contended that the applicants' claims were wholly
unsubstantiated.
On
the basis of the material in its possession, in particular, having
regard to the settlement agreement for domestic legal fees that Mr
Çınar made, the Court awards each applicant (except for
Mustafa Yağmur, Hamdusela Ekinci and Nusret Atlı) EUR 500
in respect of costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to join the applications;
Strikes out those parts of the application filed
by Mustafa Yağmur and Hamdusela Ekinci (no. 74703/01), as well
as the application of Nusret Atlı (no. 76380/01);
Holds that the complaints under Article 6
of the Convention, submitted by the remainder of the applicants
are admissible;
4. Holds that the
complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are admissible in
respect of Bayram Ceylan, M. Cihat Aydın, M.
Ali Ağın, Fuat Albayrak, Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu,
Enver Askan, Şaban Canpolat and Salih Kömekçi and
inadmissible with regard to the remainder of the applicants;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Bayram Ceylan, M.
Cihat Aydın, M. Ali Ağın, Fuat Albayrak, Ahmet
Hüseyinoğlu, Enver Askan, Şaban Canpolat and Salih
Kömekçi;
Holds that there has also been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all applicants
except for Mustafa Yağmur, Hamdusela Ekinci and Nusret Atlı;
7. Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay to Bayram Ceylan, M. Cihat Aydın,
M. Ali Ağın, Fuat Albayrak, Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu,
Enver Askan, Şaban Canpolat and Salih Kömekçi,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes
final, the amounts of the domestic judgment debts still owed to them,
plus statutory interest applicable under domestic law;
(b)
that the respondent State is also to pay the
applicants who are listed below the following sums,
to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date
of settlement:
(i)
EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) for Abbas Baran;
- EUR
1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) for Hasan Buğa;
- EUR
2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros) for İnayet Çiçek;
- EUR
2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros) for Necat Öztemel;
- EUR
2,000 for (two thousand euros) Musa Narin;
- EUR
1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) for Mehmet Fikri
Yıldırım; and
- EUR
5,000 (five thousand euros) for each of the applicants Bayram
Ceylan, M. Cihat Aydın, M. Ali Ağın, Fuat Albayrak,
Ahmet Hüseyinoğlu, Enver Askan, Şaban Canpolat
and Salih Kömekçi.
(ii) EUR
500 (five hundred euros) to each of these applicants for costs and
expenses;
(iii) plus
any taxes that may be chargeable;
(c) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President